|
|
|
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP Announce Notice of Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements
Legal Business |
2011/06/20 08:24
|
If You Bought Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Between November 1, 1996 to December 31, 2006, Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements May Affect You
SRAM is used in many computers, smart phones, PDAs and other electronic devices
Para una notificacion en espanol, llamar o visitar nuestro website
A federal court certified a nationwide settlement class of individuals and companies that purchased SRAM indirectly from one or more Defendants (the "Settlement Class"). Defendants are corporations that indirectly sold SRAM to customers in the United States. For a full list of the defendants, visit the website below. The case is In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:07-md-1819 CW in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
What is the Class Action About?
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM in violation of antitrust, unfair competition and unjust enrichment laws, resulting in overcharges to customers who indirectly purchased SRAM. Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The court has not decided who is right. Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (the "Settling Defendants") have agreed to settle with Plaintiffs; they continue to deny liability, but settled to avoid litigation expense and risk.
Who's Included?
You are a member of the Settlement Class and could get benefits if you indirectly purchased SRAM from one of the Defendants in the United States during the period November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2006. SRAM is a memory part or module that is sold by itself or as a part in electronic devices.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $15,900,000. Copies of the Settlement Agreements are available at the website below. In 2010, the Court approved settlements with other defendants that total $25,422,000 (the "2010 Settlements"); those settlements are now final and binding on the Settlement Class.
How Will the Money Be Distributed?
The total Settlement Fund from all settlements is $41,322,000. The Settlement Class includes indirect purchasers of SRAM that resold Defendants' SRAM ("Resellers"), as well as indirect purchasers of Defendants' SRAM that purchased it for their own use and not for resale ("End Users"). The Net Settlement Fund (the Settlement Fund minus court-approved costs, attorneys' fees and incentive awards), will be distributed as follows: (1) 36.7% of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to qualified Resellers through a court-approved claims process; and (2) 63.3% of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed via a court-approved cy pres plan to non-profit charities for the benefit of End Users. The cy pres portion of the distribution plan is due to the high cost of processing claims and making direct cash distributions to many thousands of potential claimants relative to the average likely award to those claimants. Under the cy pres plan of distribution, payments will not be made to individual class members; instead, that portion of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to court-approved non-profit charities. Go to the website below to see the distribution plan details or the proposed list of non-profit charities. Unclaimed funds from the Reseller claims process, if any, will be added to the cy pres distribution. Class Counsel will request attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement of their costs and expenses, and incentive payments for the court-appointed class representatives. The attorneys' fees application shall be filed by August 1, 2011, and will be posted on the case website.
Who Represents You?
The Court has appointed Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP as Class Counsel. You do not have to pay these lawyers to represent you. You may hire your own attorney, if you wish; however, you will be responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses.
What Are Your Options?
If you do not want to be a part of the Settlement Class or legally bound by the Samsung and Cypress settlements, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. You may not exclude yourself from the 2010 Settlements. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must do so in writing, postmarked no later than August 25, 2011.
The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for October 6, 2011 and will consider whether to approve the proposed settlements, distribution plan and requests for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive payments. This date may change without further notice. Any new hearing date or time will be posted on the website below.
You may object to or comment on any part of the proposed settlement. Your objection/comment must be filed with the Court by August 25, 2011. You may also request in writing to speak at the Final Approval Hearing.
If you are a Reseller and want to make a claim, or for more information, you may 1) write to SRAM Indirect Litigation, P.O. Box 8090, San Rafael, CA 94912, 2) call the toll free phone number 1-866-252-7551, or 3) visit the website www.indirectsramcase.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Legal Marketing |
2011/06/20 08:24
|
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Longtop Financial Technologies Limited (“Longtop” or the “Company”) (NYSE:LFT - News) on the New York Stock Exchange between October 25, 2007 and May 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you purchased Longtop securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 22, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the litigation.
Longtop shareholders who wish to learn more about the actions and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff may visit Lieff Cabraser’s website at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/securities-investor-fraud/case/473/longtop-financial-technologies-limited-securities-class-litigation or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.
Background on the Longtop Securities Class Litigation
The actions are brought against Longtop and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Longtop, headquartered in Beijing, China, designs, develops, and delivers software solutions and information technology services to the financial services industry in China.
The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and omitted material information regarding Longtop’s financial condition and prospects. On April 26, 2011, Citron Research issued a report raising serious issues with Longtop’s reported financial results, accounting practices, and operations. In response to the report, the price of Longtop’s shares fell significantly, closing at $17.73 per share on April 27, 2011.
Following the publication of the Citron Research report, Longtop hosted a conference call with investors and analysts during which its senior management denied the allegations in the report. On May 9, 2011, Citron published a second report entitled “Longtop Financial (NYSE:LFT - News) Final Proof of Undisclosed Related Party Transactions.” In response to the report, the price of Longtop shares fell another $1.67 per share, or 8.3 percent, to close at $18.54 on May 9, 2011.
On May 17, 2011, NYSE Regulation, Inc. halted trading in Longtop shares pending an announcement by the Company. Two days later, on May 19, 2011, Longtop issued a press release stating that it would not announce its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011 results on May 23, 2011 as previously scheduled.
On May 23, 2011, Longtop issued a press release announcing that its independent auditor, Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. (“DTT”), and its Chief Financial Officer, defendant Derek Palaschuk, had resigned. According to the release, Deloitte stated in its resignation letter that it was resigning “as the result of, among other things: (1) the recently identified falsity of the Company's financial records in relation to cash at bank and loan balances (and possibly in sales revenue); (2) the deliberate interference by certain members of Longtop management in DTT's audit process; and (3) the unlawful detention of DTT's audit files. DTT further stated that DTT was no longer able to rely on management's representations in relation to prior period financial reports, that continued reliance should no longer be placed on DTT's audit reports on the previous financial statements, and DTT declined to be associated with any of the Company's financial communications in 2010 and 2011.” In addition, Longtop revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation regarding related matters.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.
Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight consecutive years.
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex bias case
Court Watch |
2011/06/20 07:25
|
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of women who work there.
The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages.
Now, the handful of women who brought the lawsuit may pursue their claims on their own, with much less money at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle.
The justices divided 5-4 on another aspect of the ruling that could make it much harder to mount similar class-action discrimination lawsuits against large employers.
Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court's conservative majority said there needs to be common elements tying together "literally millions of employment decisions at once."
But Scalia said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer, "That is entirely absent here."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough uniting the claims. "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said.
Business interests lined up with Wal-Mart while civil rights, women's and consumer groups have sided with the women plaintiffs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't look at dispute over Sioux land
Court News |
2011/06/20 05:25
|
The Supreme Court has refused to get involved in a long-running dispute on the continued existence of the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the extent of its lands in South Dakota.
The justices on Monday let stand several rulings involving the tribe, including an appeals court decision saying the reservation covers more than 30,000 acres, which is mostly land the federal government holds in trust for the tribe and individual tribal members.
The high court also rejected an appeal from the tribe to block the transfer of two federal recreation areas along the Missouri River to the state of South Dakota.
The cases are Daugaard v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 10-929; Southern Missouri Recycling v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 10-931; Hein v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 10-932; and Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Daugaard, 10-1058.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to hear Montana dams lawsuit
Court News |
2011/06/20 01:26
|
The Supreme Court is entering a $40 million dispute between an energy company and Montana that could turn on the experiences of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
The justices said Monday they will hear an appeal from PPL Montana of a state court decision ordering the company to pay $40 million in rent for placing its hydroelectric dams in riverbeds owned by the state.
The ownership of the waterways turns on whether they were navigable when Montana became a state in 1889. Both the company and the state base part of their argument on the journey of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark more than 200 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
